Principal Petitioner Martinus Nuroso as Chairperson of the Forum for Pensioners of Bank Negara Indonesia in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 13 of 2003 on Manpower on Thursday (22/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) passed a decree related to the judicial review of Law No.13/2003 on Manpower, Thursday (22/11). The Court confirmed that it was not authorized to hear the case.

"Declares that the Constitutional Court is not authorized to hear the Petitioner\'s petition," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman reading out Decree Number 75/PUU-XVI/2018.

The Court, Anwar added, had found ambiguity over the subject matter raised by the Petitioner. This can be seen in the title of the petition, "Petition for Judicial Review of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia." The petitum of the petition is questions about when the Constitutional Court Decision Number 100/PUU-X/2012, which invalidates the provision of Article 96 of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower, start to apply.

"The Court had advised that the Petitioner clarify the norms of the law requested for review to prove the loss of constitutional rights. However, in the petition revision hearing on October 4, 2018, the Petitioner stood his ground," he affirmed.

The Forum for Pensioners of Bank Negara Indonesia (FPP BNI) had filed a petition to the Constitutional Court (MK) on the application of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-X/2012 that invalidated Article 96 of Law No. 13/2003 on Manpower. FPP BNI Chairperson Martinus Nuroso was the Petitioner of case No. 75/PUU-XVI/2018.

The Petitioner argued that the interpretation of the non-retroactive Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-X/2012 was one-sided, causing the impairment of the constitutional rights of FPP BNI members due to lack of legal certainty. The lack of legal certainty arose from the failure of BNI bank to fully pay the rights of the Petitioner even after the expiry period had passed, even though the right had arisen before the Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-X/2012 dated September 19, 2013. The right was deemed no longer liable, thus causing significant material losses to the Petitioner.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court prioritize the examination and ruling on the petition by giving the correct interpretation of the moment the Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-X/2012 went into effect on September 19, 2013, annulling Article 96 of Law No.13/2003 on Manpower, considering that it has caused constitutional harm and, in turn, can cause material losses for the Petitioner.

In addition, the Petitioner requested clarity of the enactment date of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-X/2012 on September 19, 2013 which annulled Article 96 of Law No.13/2003 on Manpower. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)